If we’re all too busy being social businesses, who’s going to inspire the young?

I’m glad we’re starting to see a bit of discussion about the value of charitable status and the different roles and purposes of the multitude of non-profit organisations and companies that are springing up.

I’ve been worried for a long time that the sector’s charities have been drifting too far from their campaigning and fundraising roots and into service delivery. What started out in the sector as an interesting stroll down a path towards the creation of diverse public service partners has opened up into a gigantic free-for-all. Predictably, the sector is now populated with social enterprises, social businesses, community interest companies and others, all willing to be in receipt of the state’s dollar to deliver our public services. And they are all competing with the charities that paved the way through the Compact.

Public service delivery is now a vast and open market. Ask Serco.

But when the large children and young people’s charities prefer to call themselves ‘social businesses’ in order to compete in this overcrowded marketplace, we move inexorably into territory where charitable purpose becomes meaningless and even undesirable.

For vulnerable and disadvantaged young people this is not good news. As we have seen with the Work Programme, the need to meet targets in order to justify or even receive funding for a service, leads to the people with the most complex needs being ignored. They are those who cannot be ‘resolved’ or moved on quickly and inexpensively.

So if charities stop thinking like charities entirely, who will be there for the most disadvantaged, those most in need of the long-term, expensive solutions? And who will take the time to set up and fund the types of projects that have less tangible outcomes, like those devoted to raising young people’s self-esteem or engaging them in the arts?

That problem speaks to a wider issue. We are told that in a time of austerity, those ‘fluffy’ projects with ‘soft’ outcomes cannot be prioritised. Projects that help young people get to know themselves, identify their talents and abilities and begin to explore them, projects that help them manage their relationships or develop their communication skills and ability to work with others – these are difficult to fund, hard to justify.

And yet, it is these skills, dispositions and aptitudes that will help our young people navigate the years to come and the barriers we have left in the road.

Charities must not forget their roots. Yes, funding is hard to come by and contracts with government offer an attractive source of reliable income. But let’s not forget who we are and why we came here.

Young people under the age of sixteen are now prevented from walking the streets of Bangor town centre at night, unless a responsible adult is with them.

The Education Secretary is to consult on the reintroduction of O Levels and CSEs, meaning that young people would have the limit of their ability to achieve determined for them at the age of thirteen.

The number of young people aged 16-18 who are not in education, employment or training, rose again in the last quarter.

It’s getting harder and harder to be young. Charities have a job to do and it is at the side of the children and young people who need us.

  • Vic Borrill

    I think that speculating what the Big Lottery might do next is an occupational hazard but Richard’s piece got me thinking.

    The Brighton & Hove Food Partnership has for the last four years been the lead partner on a Local Food Funded project Harvest Brighton & Hove.

    For us delivering work funded by a programme approach (where a single body holds responsibility for distribution of funding and administration of the programme) has offered some clear benefits.

    Local Food is managed by the RSWT and having grant officers who are specialists on the themed programme means they have been able to do so much more than administer the money, monitor the outputs and measure the outcomes.

    We have been able to easily find out when other places are doing similar work, have access to community food resources (saving masses of time by not reinventing the tractor wheel) and have a forum (foodecommunity) to share what we have learnt.

    We have also had a grant manager who understands what the whole Local Food programme was setting out to achieve as well as having time to dedicate to our individual project. This has helped to guide some of our decisions. And although not yet published the evaluation that Local Food are doing on the way the programme has been delivered and what it has achieved overall shows their commitment to reflecting and learning themselves.

    Not wanting to make these claims without checking with others I asked the opinions of some colleagues from other Local Food funded Beacon projects (who I know well enough to ask because I’ve met them at local food events).

    Commonwork in Kent agreed that the opportunities for face-to-face sharing and learning enabled by Local Food/RSWT has been valuable both for the immediate work and the sustainability of the work going ahead.

    Incredible Edible Todmorden added that it was also the Beacon approach that has been of great benefit . “The active involvement and detailed knowledge of the other projects shown by RSWT/Local Food has been of huge value to us and their proactive promotion of networking between us all has provided great learning opportunities”

    I would agree with Learning through Landscapes that crucial to the success of a programme approach is the selection process for Award partners (i.e. RSWT, Mind, Groundwork) which needs to ensure the programme is managed by competent leaders in the sector. This shouldn’t be seen as the Big handing over the reigns to ‘prime contractors’. In the case of Local Food and RSWT for example, it certainly appears from a grant recipient’s point of view that the programme is collaborative.

    So while I don’t know about the fulfilling lives a better start programme and locally competing to be a lead partner sounds far from ideal there is much to be gained from a programme approach along the line of Local Food.

    Finally a thought on overheads. ‘Efficiency’ should not be at the expense of ensuring that those making the grant decisions have the skills, knowledge and time to make informed decisions. Otherwise we risk that organisations who are small, new, don’t have fundraising teams or grant application experience losing out – not because their work wasn’t suitable for lottery funding but because they didn’t get the right support at application stage.

    Good luck indeed to whoever is in charge at the Lottery next and if he or she want to find out more about the comprehensive work of the Local Food Programme I suggest a visit to one of the 500 projects funded by local food – I’m sure they will get the tea and cake out.

    http://www.localfoodgrants.org
    http://www.harvest-bh.org.uk

Latest jobs Jobs web feed

  •  

    June 2012
    M T W T F S S
    « Apr   Jul »
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • Most read posts

  • Most commented

  • Tags